UCI World points

[KazakhNeRider]

Excuse me if it was discussed somewhere. I think it's really required to change system of World tour points transfers - now points are moving with riders to new team. So - if transfer is already announced "Old team" stops to send riders to the World tour races.

For me it is more logical if points of riders will be splitted between "old" and "new" teams. Half for "old" - because the team supported their leaders, in this case there's still stimulus to include strong riders in the World tour rosters. Autumn-Show must go on for riders even if all stars decide to change their teams

 

[King Boonen]

I think it's more logical that all the points stay with the team when a rider moves on.

 

[Netserk]

I think it's more logical that all the points stay with the team when a rider moves on.

+1

What more I want make a rule so a new team can't be pro team the first year. Instead they can do like BMC did, and rely on invites the first year, and then if they are good enough they can become pro team.

And on last thing: Fewer pro teams! (and Protour races!)

 

[spalco]

I think it's more logical that all the points stay with the team when a rider moves on.

Well, if the point is to provide an objective measure of a team's strength, it would make sense to transfer points with the rider, since for example a team with Cancellara or Contador, instantly would get that much stronger.

 

[Bye Bye Bicycle]

There are way too much people with Vinokourov avatars round here.

 

[togo95]

+1
And on last thing: Fewer pro teams! (and Protour races!)

I would rebuild the whole system and get rid of ProTour as it is, but this would help too, and is less radical.

 

[Netserk]

There are way too much people with Vinokourov avatars round here.

Well I normally always have a Boonen avatar, but because Vino won the Olympics, I'll have him as avatar as long as he is with us

 

[ElChingon]

Well there needs to be a middle ground for those precious points.

A 50/50 cut is another option, rider takes 50% of his earned points and leave 50% to the team that supported him. I know a certain whinny DS already mentioned this as well in order to be more fair.

I would prefer a Pro Team status based on wins for each team, riders leaving or not. Teams with a Percentage of wins over the other teams in all races become eligible for ProTour status. Teams build the whole thing, they get the sponsors and support staff together, gather the riders, take riders to races, medical, bla bla... one rider determining ProTour status is equally wrong. Imagine if a good rider with quality points retires, all those points go to the waste basket, which is why some riders might be sticking around longer than they should for those precious ProTour points to stay with team X. Sure riders are important and if riders exit stage right like what happened at Saxo a couple years back well they still deserve a year of ProTour status for the previous years wins, a chance to prove they can rebuild, if not bu bye. Maybe this way the mega teams would choose to build rather than buy out all the quality riders just for points.

At the end of the day, yes the riders determine the quality of the team but its really like every other job, the boss gets it all together and then the employees get a chance to shine, otherwise they'd still be at the unemployment office polishing up their resume's.

 

[gustienordic]

I agree with El Chingon, points should stay to at least some degree. The Proteam rankings should also be made a little simpler, right now they are very strange and difficult to calculate because you have to figure out points each rider has in four different categories, why not purely base it off of how many UCI points a rider has and leave it at that?

 

[jens_attacks]

There are way too much people with Vinokourov avatars round here.

no they are not

sorry totally off topic

vino 4 ever!

 

[KazakhNeRider]

50\50 should be pretty fair

 

[janraaskalt]

why not purely base it off of how many UCI points a rider has and leave it at that?

Because there is no such thing as a UCI point. The ranking systems (number of points) of the World Tour and the Continental Tours are completely different.

Besides that, the Rider Value system is designed to calculate the teams that should take part in the World Tour. It is not designed to see which riders are the best. It is hard to compare teams with only 1 super rider with teams which are stuffed with good-but-not-great riders.

 

[gustienordic]

Because there is no such thing as a UCI point. The ranking systems (number of points) of the World Tour and the Continental Tours are completely different.

well yes, but that is another problem. I just hate the current system of rankings its just bureaucratic nonsense!!

 

[janraaskalt]

I just hate the current system of rankings its just bureaucratic nonsense!!

The only thing that should change is the secrecy. Make those values publicly available.

To lift the discussion to a more global level:

There are 3 ways to determine which teams comprise the WT.
1) Determine the strength of the teams in the current year. This is the current way the UCI uses (Sporting Value of the teams).
2) Let teams qualify during the previous season. Promotion/relegation system.
3) Create 18 permanent licenses, without qualification. Money rules.

They all have their disadvantages. We all know the disadvantages of the Sporting Value system, but actually it is not too bad. If the point system is alright, the best 18 teams will participate.
Promotion/relegation has the disadvantage that teams who see their best riders leave still can participate in all WT races. Also, new teams cannot be part of the WT. Which is good for some, but could drive away new sponsors. The permanent license system makes it harder for new teams to get into the World Tour. It would create continuity however.

 

[gustienordic]

The only thing that should change is the secrecy. Make those values publicly available.

To lift the discussion to a more global level:

There are 3 ways to determine which teams comprise the WT.
1) Determine the strength of the teams in the current year. This is the current way the UCI uses (Sporting Value of the teams).
2) Let teams qualify during the previous season. Promotion/relegation system.
3) Create 18 permanent licenses, without qualification. Money rules.

They all have their disadvantages. We all know the disadvantages of the Sporting Value system, but actually it is not too bad. If the point system is alright, the best 18 teams will participate.
Promotion/relegation has the disadvantage that teams who see their best riders leave still can participate in all WT races. Also, new teams cannot be part of the WT. Which is good for some, but could drive away new sponsors. The permanent license system makes it harder for new teams to get into the World Tour. It would create continuity however.

Whereas I agree the sporting value is a useful system, I think the transparency is something that is needed. When publishing the UCI world tour/european tour/ etc points of each rider on the Weekly(?) basis they do, why not also publish how many ProTeam points each rider has. This should be easy for the UCI bookies. Transparency would go a long way I think. Or just make 1 ranking system more like CQ that makes everything simple.

 

[rxgqgxnyfz]

I think it's more logical that all the points stay with the team when a rider moves on.

Yeah, this "buying a rider just for his points" policy has to be stopped. So is "we won't support this rider cause he's moving anyways".

Also Vino avatar representing.

 

[the asian]

50\50 should be pretty fair

This is quite fair in a sporting sense. The only problem is regarding the new teams. If a new team is formed and they do not get WT status sponsors might be reluctant because only being a WT team guarantees you the Invitation to WT races.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

All points should stay with the team they were gained on. Nothing else makes much sense to me. It's a team sport. Points gained by an individual rider are dependent on other riders in the team.

For new teams, not having automatic world tour status is a good thing in my book. If you're good enough then prove it. Isn't this what the wild card selections are for ?

 

[Steve H.]

If a points system has to be used, maybe utilizing a separate system for teams and riders where the rider isn't competing against his team for status would be more beneficial.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

There are way too much people with Vinokourov avatars round here.

Ever considered that there is this many avatars because he is totally and indisputably the most awesome rider out there?

 

[the asian]

All points should stay with the team they were gained on. Nothing else makes much sense to me. It's a team sport. Points gained by an individual rider are dependent on other riders in the team.

For new teams, not having automatic world tour status is a good thing in my book. If you're good enough then prove it. Isn't this what the wild card selections are for ?

Yes, but there aren't enough Wild Card selections. For the 3 GT s only 4 Wild Card teams are selected and most of it will go to local teams.
Geox missed out on a Tour spot last year despite having Menchov and Sastre in their ranks. Sponsors want there teams to participate in the most popular races.
In the end Geox discontinued their sponsorship of the team and the team folded.

A good compromise would be to increase the no of teams invited to the Tour, allowing for more Wild Cards, but to decrease the no of riders per team, say from 9 to 7.

However the Pro Tour teams will not wan't it and it's unlikely to happen.

 

[King Boonen]

Well, if the point is to provide an objective measure of a team's strength, it would make sense to transfer points with the rider, since for example a team with Cancellara or Contador, instantly would get that much stronger.

Unless both riders under perform, are injured or have clinic related problems.

The points are earned for the team, in a team sport, with help from other riders and the support staff in that team. It is an utterly ridiculous system that seems riders being able to hold a team to ransom with the threat of removing points that were earned with that teams support. I can't think of any other sport, or walk of life off the top of my head, where it is allowed to happen.


Also, the WT selection criteria need to be made plain and clear.

 

[janraaskalt]

A good compromise would be to increase the no of teams invited to the Tour, allowing for more Wild Cards, but to decrease the no of riders per team, say from 9 to 7.

A good compromise would be to decrease the number of Pro Tour teams to 15. This leaves room for PCT teams to participate in a lot of races, without being forced to ride all the biggies. It will also increase the possibilities of inviting local teams to the big races.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Yes, but there aren't enough Wild Card selections. For the 3 GT s only 4 Wild Card teams are selected and most of it will go to local teams.
Geox missed out on a Tour spot last year despite having Menchov and Sastre in their ranks. Sponsors want there teams to participate in the most popular races.
In the end Geox discontinued their sponsorship of the team and the team folded.

A good compromise would be to increase the no of teams invited to the Tour, allowing for more Wild Cards, but to decrease the no of riders per team, say from 9 to 7.

However the Pro Tour teams will not wan't it and it's unlikely to happen.

Different issue but I'd totally agree. And yeah all of this is pie in the sky with the current regime in charge

 

[RedheadDane]

My opinion on the matter:

1: All teams should start as at least pro-conti but preferably conti.

2: No point transfer. All teams starting the season with zero points.

---

Besides; from when exactly does points earned go to the new team?